It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exposing American hypocrisy- The Interview Part Deux.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
By now unless you have been living in a cave. You have heard about The Interview, and how it was an attack on 'fundamental' American beliefs.

'Americans don't like to be told what they can or can't watch'.

That was the rallying cry for 'freedom' loving Americans, because Americans don't like to be told what to do by some 'communist' regime.

Americans say they don't like 'censorship'. So much they vigorously defend the First Amendment. Oh how I wish Americans, and ESPECIALLY hollywood were consistent, and by that I wish they would defend the second amendment so vociferously.

Because GUESS WHAT ?

That is what gun control is. CENSORSHIP of a fundamental right we all have. Just like the RIGHT to say what we want. The Right to watch what we want, and for those that think the First amendment is a limited right it's not.

We have the right to own whatever firearm we want.without the invasion of privacy of the background check, or any limitations what so ever.

Freedom is freedom there are no half measure's.

No one would stand for a license for free speech.

No one would stand for a federal background check for free speech.

No one would stand for taxes, and fees for free speech.

No one would stand for waiting the 'mandatory' 7 waiting period for free speech.

But apparently the second amendment isn't as 'important' as the first.

I want to thank the North Korea regime. For exposing yet another instance of American, and hollywood cognitive dissonance.

Anyhow that's my opinion, and I thank God. I don't yet have to get governments permission to express it.

On the other hand the RIGHT to keep, and bear arms is a different story.



+3 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I can counter your thread with one simple truth:

Free speech doesn't put hundreds of fatal holes in school children.

I'm all for gun ownership, before I moved to Japan I owned a .45 ACP and an Armalite rifle.

But there needs to be some common sense measures in place to at least put SOME roadblock on crazies and criminals getting their hands on weapons.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Not much of a counter.

Since going around shooting children is already illegal unless it happens to be In Mexico running guns, and droning them in the ME.

But hey way to miss the point of the thread.
edit on 26-12-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure I got the point of your thread loud and clear.

My answer is valid, regardless of whether it's "illegal" or not, people sometimes DIE when they are shot by firearms.

Free speech won't kill anyone. It's really that simple. I can't shout at you and kill you. But I sure as hell can shoot you and kill you.

But I know there's no changing your mind. Any reason to be angry about anything, it seems.

I wonder what your opinion would have been if Sony never released the film.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I starred your post, because so often, we hold up an extreme, in order to justify another extreme!
That is BS. Limits to freedom, are also protection of others. Yes, too much of anything become a bad thing... But that doesn't mean none at all is better. Control over who can have weapons, and under what circumstances, seems appropriate to me.
Hell, I have members of my own family in the US that I know really shouldn't have the right to bear arms- they're nuts.

I am watching The Interview right now, and I have been wondering lately- why is the battle of the sexes so hostile in the US???
I've been thinking it is the media that promotes this. This movie encourages that opinion. The media profits from promoting hatred in general. So they do it.


edit on 26-12-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

People with guns can say anything.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Speech involves some regulation and restrictions too - does it not?

Defamation, Incitement to commit crime, Sedition, Causing panic and others.


edit on 26-12-2014 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: neo96

People with guns can say anything.


People with guns is an extension of the first, when words fail.

That is why it was written, and why it is number 2.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UmbraSumus
a reply to: neo96

Speech involves some regulation and restrictions too - does it not?

Defamation, Incitement to commit crime, Sedition, Causing panic and others.



Well then people need to stop 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' with guns.

Since there are 'limitations' on speech.

I



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: UmbraSumus

Very good point, Umbra. There ARE limits to Free Speech.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ah yes. If my words don't convince you, my two friends Smith and Wesson will, right?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I am for legal responsible gun owners who are in their right minds.

I am also for background checks...if a person is a law abiding citizen...with no skeletons in their closet...they should not mind a background check...if they have nothing to hide...they should pass the background check with no problems.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Measures are in place with respect to how potentially dangerous the freedom in question is. For example, free speech doesn't need a license but that doesn't mean it's without law. If you were to verbally threaten to harm another person, that's not protected free speech. Even words carry a threat to personal safety.

But they don't carry the same threat a firearm does. This means there are different stipulations in place for that freedom.

I believe there are lines we should never cross with our 2nd amendment (like actually revoking it or restricting it to the point of making it prohibitively difficult to exercise as an average citizen) but there needs to be some basic measures in place to protect everybody else and their basic rights to pursue the American dream without getting shot by some drunk using hand grenades for skeet targets.

There is a balance to strike and the difficulty maintaining that balance means it's working. If it were a settled issue, that means somebody's freedoms were compromised.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: caladonea




I am for legal responsible gun owners who are in their right minds.


And just who gets to decide that ?

The same people running guns to drug cartels, and to terrorist's in the ME.

No thanks.




I am also for background checks..


Why ?

Wilfully VIOLATING the 4th Amendment




I am also for background checks...if a person is a law abiding citizen...with no skeletons in their closet...t


Well hoorah for GUILTY until proven innocent. Since most gun owners have done no wrong.

But hell make us pay for the CRIMES of what someone else has done!.




they should not mind a background check.


I mind the background check very much. Since it is a constitutional violation, and I don't think people should have to prove their 'worth' to the state.
edit on 26-12-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo




Measures are in place with respect to how potentially dangerous the freedom in question is. For example, free speech doesn't need a license but that doesn't mean it's without law. If you were to verbally threaten to harm another person, that's not protected free speech. Even words carry a threat to personal safety.


Miss all the threats coming from North Korea. So by 'law' we are required to do something?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Every time there's a mass shooting people clamor, "It's not guns. It's a mental health issue. Do something about that." Ok, but now you are saying, "Do nothing." That is tacit approval of all those killed in the past and a "Bully, I don't care" about those that WILL be killed. When? Today? Tomorrow? The next day?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


I think everybody should be able to have a gun except you xD. (I'm kidding) People though.. People can be bad. Really bad. Freedom is the wild west.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hey neo were thier people who could not have guns when they wrote the second?
Or did they allow every Man and women to have a gun?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




Every time there's a mass shooting people clamor, "It's not guns. It's a mental health issue.


It is not a 'mental' health issue. It is trying to be made in to that. Because it is an end run around the constitution.

Society ALREADY has laws for mental issues, and murder, but apparently that isn't enough for some.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: RodNasty
a reply to: neo96


I think everybody should be able to have a gun except you xD. (I'm kidding) People though.. People can be bad. Really bad. Freedom is the wild west.


So the thought police for what someone might do. That millions never do.

That isn't freedom.

That isn't liberty.

That ranks right up there with despotic regimes like North Korea.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join